So many errors and contradictions

[Skovari]

My two cents here is that the new RQG has gotten all of the people I play with excited in playing RQ and Glorantha again.  They love pretty much 99% of the updates to the rules.  The part that really has them excited is the strong tie to Glorantha finally.  They all really like RQ, but it's Glorantha that keeps them coming back.  And RQ makes a great set of crunchy rules to play it in.  We do our fair share of role playing, just because you are using the RQ rule set does not mean you can't do story telling and non-crunchy things.  But then you have the RQ rules there to handle the combats.

And I should say most of the group purchased their first version of RQ in Ann Arbor many years ago!

Edited October 9, 2018 by Skovari

[PhilHibbs]

14 hours ago, Grimmshade said:

...combat with skills greater than 100% is different in the combat chapter than it is in the skills chapter...

I've started off the new Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty page on the unofficial wiki with this one. And, to be honest I hadn't spotted it before! Good catch. I think it's pretty clear that both skills should be reduced, if you're going to reduce special and critical chances.

My house rule suggestion is to not reduce critical or special chances for either side, which makes it moot whether you reduce the higher skill or not.

14 hours ago, Grimmshade said:

...the example of using Runes has a -10% penalty for failure instead of -20% mentioned earlier...

I can't find this, where is it?

14 hours ago, Grimmshade said:

the Parry chart and the section on Critical Parry differ completely,

I think that's a slight overstatement, the only real difference is that versus a normal attack, p198 says roll normal weapon damage, but p199 says to roll special damage.

Edited October 9, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[tedopon]

10 hours ago, Crel said:

Best I can tell, most of these challenges and weirdnesses come because a lot of the text of RQG is lifted from prior editions, and then altered.

That's the case with RQG, the Guide, the Sourcebook and most likely the monster book which I haven't bothered to read since I've been playing 13G.

I'm not complaining, but most of the new run is recycled material compiled. Again, not complaining, was aware this would be the case for years leading up to these releases and still paid for them.

...but that's why I've been playing 13G.

[simonh]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

Are there?  Lacking any references for it, I'd argue against that bald assertion that pretty strenuously. 

I may well be pretty out of date. I hope so, I'd be very happy to be wrong.

[Pentallion]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

This is pretty much the feedback we get. The handful of grognards grumbling about a few slight discrepancies seem to be looking for something to grumble about. Then again, it could just be a case of "not really my kind of game" - which is just fine. No game is going to work for everyone. I got a long laundry list of popular games that don't work for me.

Jeff

I hope you don't take that attitude and not clean up the rules where it's necessary.  This isn't a few grognards grumbling.  As the OP said, he's new to the game.  This isn't about finding a gripe or not liking a rule, it's about the rules flat out contradicting themselves and causing confusion. 

You should be able to accept constructive criticism guys.  We all love your game.  I personally would love it to thrive.

[Joerg]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

My house rule suggestion is to not reduce critical or special chances for either side, which makes it moot whether you reduce the higher skill or not.

This is easily led ad absurdum when there is an 80% difference between two skills above 100%, as the player with the lower skill will miss rolling more than a 20 but will have specials rolling above 20. How do you plan to resolve that?

[PhilHibbs]

48 minutes ago, Joerg said:

This is easily led ad absurdum when there is an 80% difference between two skills above 100%, as the player with the lower skill will miss rolling more than a 20 but will have specials rolling above 20. How do you plan to resolve that?

Like you said, anything over a 20 is a fail. A fail can't be a special, but a success can. Done.

[daskindt]

I still can’t figure out if Crits ignore armor and do max special damage or if they ignore armor and just do rolled special damage.

[PhilHibbs]

3 minutes ago, daskindt said:

I still can’t figure out if Crits ignore armor and do max special damage or if they ignore armor and just do rolled special damage.

I think the table on p199 is probably the most reliable source.

[Grimmshade]

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

This is pretty much the feedback we get. The handful of grognards grumbling about a few slight discrepancies seem to be looking for something to grumble about. Then again, it could just be a case of "not really my kind of game" - which is just fine. No game is going to work for everyone. I got a long laundry list of popular games that don't work for me.

Jeff

I'll post all the examples of contradictory rules tomorrow when I'm not at work.

It's bad form to say anyone who has a legit complaint is just grumbling. I was put off by the poor editing, but still excited to play. Now I'm considering eBay.

[BWP]

The RQ rules (any iteration) aren't especially complex.  They're not especially simple, either, but people will gravitate to rules systems that suit them, and gravitate away from rules systems that don't suit them.  The complexity (or lack of it) is a non-issue, IMO.

What is an issue is the terrible editing in the finished documents.  That's where Chaosium needs to focus their attention on for future products.  No published product is perfect, and nit-pickers can find nits to pick anywhere.  It is however possible to publish a rules document that does not contain gross contradictions within its own text, but that requires some editorial diligence not yet in evidence.  (I'd start by finding some new proof-readers, because whoever is doing the job currently are collectively letting the team down.)

Willingness to publish errata as required is always a good sign.  Why are the "RuneFix" documents not downloadable from the Chaosium website?  There should be a link to it right on the product page.  (The product page for the RQG rules is excellent, full of lots of information.  Too bad if what you're looking for is errata!)

 

[g33k]

48 minutes ago, Grimmshade said:

...  It's bad form to say anyone who has a legit complaint is just grumbling ...

Some possibly relevant context is that RQ fans have been known as "grognards" for at least a couple of decades.  The term originated in the Napoleonic wars, and literally means "grumblers."  Grumbling (in ways that would normally elicit military discipline) was considered a perquisite of a few soldiers who had served Napoleon for long years...

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, simonh said:

From looking at the reviews it's the cults, homelands, runes, passions, magic, etc that are selling it. It's the fusion of BRP and Glorantha that brings the magic,  there's a special alchemy there, but I don't think the specific iteration of the BRP combat mechanics is a differentiating factor.

And there is the problem with the RPG market. As long as something sells good, it doesn't really matter how good it is, or how well organized, etc. or even why. At the end of the day it's the sales that matter not the quality or consistency. That stuff only matters down the road when the supplements come out. Oh, and I'm not pointing the finger at RQG here. It's just the general fact that by the time people really get to look over a game and have a good grasp of the mechanics, it's too late, they've already bought it. 

Or, as an extreme example, if 100 million people buy RQG and all hate it, the staff at Chaosium might be disappointed or hurt, but the $3.000,000,000 in sales would put the company and RQ in the best financial situation they've ever been in. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Roy]

In our second game session for RQG we ran into multiple contradictions in the rules and just hope there is a errata clarifying how the rules are intended to be used.

 

[Brootse]

5 hours ago, Pentallion said:

I hope you don't take that attitude and not clean up the rules where it's necessary.  This isn't a few grognards grumbling.  As the OP said, he's new to the game.  This isn't about finding a gripe or not liking a rule, it's about the rules flat out contradicting themselves and causing confusion. 

You should be able to accept constructive criticism guys.  We all love your game.  I personally would love it to thrive.

Agreed.

[Daucuscarota]

11 hours ago, Jeff said:

This is pretty much the feedback we get. The handful of grognards grumbling about a few slight discrepancies seem to be looking for something to grumble about. Then again, it could just be a case of "not really my kind of game" - which is just fine. No game is going to work for everyone. I got a long laundry list of popular games that don't work for me.

Jeff

Come one! Really? That's mean. You deny or minimize your own responsability and exacerbate the "bad players" guilt. That not professional, man.

In my own experience, the book is a chore to read. I haven't finished the character creation chapter yet and I feel fatigued. It's been a couple weeks since I opened the book, I really don't want to go back to it; it should be a pleasure, not a bore.

[Queegueg]

For what it's worth, I am one more customer who agrees with Grimmshade and others here.  I'm eager to see more errata.

[Jeff]

14 minutes ago, Queegueg said:

For what it's worth, I am one more customer who agrees with Grimmshade and others here.  I'm eager to see more errata.

As we have done before we will do Rune Fixes when Jason and I have enough material to make it worthwhile. For example, I'll be doing a short explanation of Second Sight (yes it lets you see nearby spirits that have not manifested in our world, no it does not let you peer into the Spirit World and see its geography)..

Jeff

[Jeff]

Here is the current Rune Fix:

https://www.chaosium.com/blogrune-fixes-1-clarifications-and-play-examples/

[jongjom]

7 hours ago, BWP said:

The RQ rules (any iteration) aren't especially complex.  They're not especially simple, either, but people will gravitate to rules systems that suit them, and gravitate away from rules systems that don't suit them.  The complexity (or lack of it) is a non-issue, IMO.

What is an issue is the terrible editing in the finished documents.  That's where Chaosium needs to focus their attention on for future products.  No published product is perfect, and nit-pickers can find nits to pick anywhere.  It is however possible to publish a rules document that does not contain gross contradictions within its own text, but that requires some editorial diligence not yet in evidence.  (I'd start by finding some new proof-readers, because whoever is doing the job currently are collectively letting the team down.)

Willingness to publish errata as required is always a good sign.  Why are the "RuneFix" documents not downloadable from the Chaosium website?  There should be a link to it right on the product page.  (The product page for the RQG rules is excellent, full of lots of information.  Too bad if what you're looking for is errata!)

 

As one of those who received a 'Special thanks' for trying to error spot typos and inconsistencies I would be happy to step aside from the numerous hours of volunteer work (dropping everything else at the time) and allow someone better to take over. Seriously. It takes some fun out of it when you have to read a brand spanking-new OMG RQ document set in Glorantha thinking 'what's wrong here', rather than 'this is fun' (which it is) and making the 'obvious' correction when needed (but jeesh, how could have they missed *that* error!). 

However, whoever does the editing I suspect the same number of glitches will get through. The Editing Process will roll 96-00% some of the time. Random bad shit happens in the real world. The only way to have reduced the number of glitches for RQ:G might have been to have yet another series of people edit the document, taking the release date well into 2019 (reading, re-reading and finely tooth-combing a 400+ page document takes a lot of time). [It's also worth noting that even the first lot of BRP.org Tribal Source Editing didn't smooth out all wrinkles.] 

It would be good for Chaosium to re-open RQG Tribal Source Editing and people make a referenced list of examples and corrections that improve the consistency and readability of the document. RuneFixes can be done, and we can look forward to 2019 when new RQ Glorantha supplements come out. 

[Jason D]

Several errors have been fixed in the updated .pdf (available soon) and will be present in future print runs. 

I'm paying attention to issues where there might be rules discrepancies, errors, or things that could use more clarity. 

It would be awesome to see these questions isolated from the background noise in this thread. I'm going to start a new thread for just that purpose. 

 

[Austin]

While I do fall closer to the "would have loved an extra edit" camp, I'd like to point out that IMHO editing within the tabletop gaming world is usually a bit... lacking. At least, that's been my experience. No grids on maps (when instructed to look at grids), map sections which don't connect to one another, misplaced stat blocks, numerical errors in modifier tables, etc. is something my friends and I have even encountered in WotC's 5E material (where I suspect they can afford to pay full-time editors).

My experience with RQG has been that there aren't substantially more errors than I've come across in comparable documents. However, some of those errors either come from frustrating causes (like text being copy-pasted from prior editions) or are in more important sections (a typo in the Game System chapter is a lot more important than in the Homelands chapter), and I think that's a cause of a lot of the frustrations expressed in this thread.

[MOB]

55 minutes ago, jongjom said:

It would be good for Chaosium to re-open RQG Tribal Source Editing and people make a referenced list of examples and corrections that improve the consistency and readability of the document. RuneFixes can be done, and we can look forward to 2019 when new RQ Glorantha supplements come out. 

We will reopen the RQG Tribal Edit thread after the updated PDF is released. That document will then serve as the definitive and only source document to flag any ongoing errors or typos from. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by MOB

[StephenMcG]

8 hours ago, Roy said:

In our second game session for RQG we ran into multiple contradictions in the rules and just hope there is a errata clarifying how the rules are intended to be used.

 

Get them out there Roy.  You will help everyone by bringing them to the boards, yourselves if there are accepted answers with8n the community, new folk who might avoid such confusion at the table as they are forewarned and Chaosium, in point8ng out specifics rather than a generic grumble. 🙂

 

There are quite a few threads going through stuff, I have been asking sorcery related questions which have drawn up other questions about enchantments.  It is a bit of work getting it on to the boards but it is valuable constructive criticism rather than negativity that makes the game better over time.

 

Stephen

[StephenMcG]

4 hours ago, Daucuscarota said:

Come one! Really? That's mean. You deny or minimize your own responsability and exacerbate the "bad players" guilt. That not professional, man.

In my own experience, the book is a chore to read. I haven't finished the character creation chapter yet and I feel fatigued. It's been a couple weeks since I opened the book, I really don't want to go back to it; it should be a pleasure, not a bore.

I envy folk who claim to enjoy reading rulebooks.  It is ALWAYS a chore for me.  I am very much a learn by doing kind of person and it takes real effort for me to see how rules in the book will impact during the game.  

Stephen